The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Campaign Day 31: And The Winner of the Week is....

Episode Date: October 11, 2019

Day 31 of Canada's 2019 Federal Election. | Thank for subscribing and for submitting a rating and review! * TWITTER @petermansbridge | INSTAGRAM @thepetermansbridge ** https://www.thepetermansbridge.com/ *** Producer: Manscorp Media Services

And hello there, I'm Peter Mansbridge. This is day 31 of the election campaign. This is the bridge. We're going to try and cover a bit of territory today, so let's get right to it. You know, I think it was back in the early 1980s. The Pierre Trudeau government had a rough going for a number of things. Their budget in 1981 was a disaster, the McKechn budget. The National Energy Program was tucked in there. There were a few other things happening that it just seemed all the time there was bad news. It was difficult, and the rat pack with Sheila Copps and John Nunziata and others on the liberal backbenches were having a field day. So by any natural progression of a government, there's always some bad news to have to deal with, and you try to kind of bury it. And what the liberals of that era used to do

was something that was relatively new, not completely new, but relatively new, is they'd bury the bad news on a late Friday afternoon, a news dump. That's what we call it these days. But they'd bury it on a late Friday afternoon because they figured, well, the media, they just want to get out of town. They want to have their weekend free and their Friday nights free, so they'll just write it fast and that'll be it. It'll die over the weekend, and by Monday, everybody will have forgotten about it. So that's what they used to do.

With the really bad, bad news, they'd take it a step up. They'd look for a Friday afternoon that was leading into a holiday weekend. Give them even more time for the story to die. So that's when they dropped the really ugly stuff. Late Friday afternoon leading into a holiday weekend. So over the years, other governments did the same stuff. Late Friday afternoon leading into a holiday weekend. So over the years, other governments did the same thing. They used that and they've used it effectively. So it's been decades of use. Doesn't often get used in an election campaign, but hey, what happened this afternoon? On a Friday afternoon leading into a long weekend, the Thanksgiving weekend,

the conservatives drop their financial plan, what their promises are going to cost, how they're going to get the money to pay for them. They drop it on a late Friday afternoon. Going into Thanksgiving weekend. Now, maybe that's just a coincidence. Maybe it wasn't ready until this moment. Maybe.

But maybe they're hoping the issues surrounding the numbers will die by the time everybody's back at it again the public is back at it again Tuesday morning I mean it wasn't entirely bad news

some people will look at it as really good news I'm not going to go through all the numbers here. You need an economist to do that. You need time. You want to read it properly. It'll all be in various online and print and television and radio over the next, well, next few hours anyway, before we all head off into the weekend. But we're talking big bucks. We're talking billions. We're talking billions in expenditures, billions in

cuts to pay for it, and some kind of foggy description of where those are going to come, and a five-year promise that after five years, the deficit will be reduced to zero. and then they'll be into a long stream of years of zero deficits because if they dare go a penny over they're going to be fines to the prime minister and his cabinet that they weren't able to hold the line on spending. Five years. Of course, the next election is in four years. So in other words, you don't have to make that promise within the term of whatever the next government is.

Kind of similar. Is there an echo in this room? Is this what we heard in 2015 from Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party? Yeah, kind of similar. Same kind of promise. Anyway, there you have your Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend news dump. You might want to spend some time looking at those numbers

and see whether they make sense to you. All right? Why don't you try that? All right, as you know, the last of the debates was last night. It was in Quebec, in Gatineau, same location, same studio, same players on the stage, as had been the English language debate earlier in the week, but this was the French language debate, the second in a week. And I've been, I didn't get a chance to watch it myself. I was in London last night giving a fabulous time at a gala fundraising dinner for the St.

Joseph's Health Centre, which is a terrific place in London. And so today what I've been doing is kind of catch up on the way others have interpreted how that went. And for the most part, people are saying there was no radical shift apparent in terms of the landscape following that debate. As usual, it takes a couple of days to get a better grip on that, but nevertheless. One of the things that's clear, though, is that most people, both in English and French Canada, feel that the French language debates were far superior to the English debates in format. The English debate format has been panned repeatedly all week, and I've been a part of that,

and so we know how we feel about that. But here's what I wanted to do to do this. I'm just simply going to read a thread in the Twitter filings of Les Perrault, the Globe and Mail. Terrific journalist. I've referred to him before. And Les's experiences are kind of national.

He was born in Winnipeg, raised in Saskatchewan. He's now part of the Globe's reporting team out of Quebec, and he's based in Montreal. So he wrote a thread today I thought was really good, and it's worth all of us knowing about this, because it's the difference in terms of how journalism, especially on television, is done in the two solitudes, if you will. And this isn't a criticism of either one, it's just underlining the differences. So here's what Les writes, and I'll just read them quickly through

this thread. So just a thought or two about the coincidence that the two French debates were better than the English debate. First, a couple of caveats. Because of my job, about 95% of my TV news consumption is TVA's LCN and Raja Canada's RDI. Second caveat, I still think debating in a second language has a calming effect, which helped. So with that perspective in mind, I feel like the two French channels treat politics as central to their mission, not just as an obligation, but key programming,

something they promote heavily, but also compete on and make money from, not just one or two shows, not just elections, all day, every day. TVA didn't want its own debate out of grim obligation or some hissy fit against RDI. Okay, maybe a bit of that lost sense. They made days of programming out of it and pumped the hell out of it. The two French channels, they're both news channels, okay, make stars out of ex-politicians, their own reporters and outsiders like the ones you saw last night. They have huge bureaus in Quebec City where they

go constantly for live coverage. No other provincial legislature gets a fraction of that TV coverage. In short, politics is their bread and butter, and my impression this is far more so than the English news networks. Now, I don't think this is all great. The programming days are increasingly filled by panel shows and opinion. You find out what's going on, yes, but there's a whole lot of churning takes. Small beans get amplified greatly. But for them, these debates weren't some obligation or experiment. Making TV out of politics is what they do all day, every day. That's interesting, right? It gives us a better sense of how politics is reported on,

especially on television in Quebec versus in the rest of Canada. And I thought that was well worth repeating, and I appreciate Les' work on putting that out today. A little music. That must mean we've got something else coming up and we do because it's time for the player of the week. All right. Who's the player of the week? This is, what is this, week four or week five? First two weeks.

This is week five. First two weeks, this is week five, first two weeks, Jagmeet Singh. Back to back. That's a record on the bridge. Back to back players of the week. Never happened before. So Jagmeet Singh was my player of the week in week one and week two. Week three, we said it was you.

We said it was the voter. We said it was the people. Based on what was then, and it seems like a year ago, were the demonstrations that took place that week on the part of those who believe climate change is the most serious threat we face and by the hundreds of thousands they protested in different parts of the country. So we gave them the player of the week. Last week, Francois Blanchet,

the bloc leader, and we were warning you a week ago, more than a week ago, that the block was making a move. Some people keep calling it a surge. I'm not there yet. I might end up being there. They've had a good run, and they've gone from fourth place to second place in Quebec.

And they've kind of crunched that lead the Liberals have had in Quebec. They had a substantive lead. They've still got a significant lead in Quebec. But as it tightens up, that can have an impact. We'll see how close it gets. Keeping in mind always that in Quebec, things tend to change. They certainly have in recent years, in the last couple of weeks. So that's why it'll be interesting to get a better determination

on what happened last night in that French language debate and whether the Liberals stopped the bleeding, whether Scheer did something to get on the board in Quebec because he hasn't done much to do that, and whether the Bloc are continuing to move upwards. That was last week for the Bloc leader. So who is it this week? that was last week for the block leader. So who is it this week?

Who is the player of the week? You know, I got to tell you, I didn't see an overall winner in these debates so far. I don't think there's any question that Jagmeet Singh has had a good, certainly had a good first half of the English language debate. I thought it was starting to sound a bit repetitive by the second half, but he had a good night. He's had a good campaign.

I'm still surprised that for somebody who's had as good a campaign as he's had, that it hasn't shown in a significant way in the numbers. He's put some distance between himself and the Green Party. At times at the beginning of the campaign, the NDP were running behind the Greens. That's not the case anymore. So in that he's succeeded, but he hasn't, like, pushed his number way up. He's still in the sort of mid-teens at best in the surveys I've seen. Trudeau went into the week knowing he'd be attacked, and he was attacked. He faltered at times.

He scored at times. Scheer went into the week knowing that he had to make a move. Did he make that move? Not sure yet. Haven't seen it in the numbers. That doesn't mean it hasn't had an impact. He didn't make any ghastly mistakes.

Unlike all the others, didn't make a ghastly mistakes. Unlike all the others, didn't make a knockout punch. The Green Party? Not sure. Haven't seen it. We know that Elizabeth May is capable of making the headlines and making inroads.

I just haven't seen it yet. And she's running out of time. Running out of runway, as they say. The block. Good week for the block. And then we've got our friend Maxime Bernier, who comes in at 1% into the week. They have come out at 2%.

So, hey, he's doubled his vote. Does that make him player of the week? I don't think so. I don't know. I think I'm going to cop out on this one and say they're all players of the week. Lots of pressure on going into a debate. I think sometimes we don't recognize that fact. I've talked to other leaders who've gone into debates and have been honest about how difficult it is.

You've got all your people prepping you and telling you what to do and how to look and what to wear and all that. And suddenly there you are in front of the cameras. And it is always the most watched moment of the campaign. Whether the format's good or bad is indifferent. People are going to watch because this is their opportunity to see. So there's pressure.

So nobody fell flat on their face from what I saw. So let's make them all players of the week as we get down to the last one next Friday. We'll see who wins the final week. Okay, we have some letters.

In fact, we got a lot of letters. So strap yourselves in. I'm going to try to go through these quickly. You know I tend to talk too much. I tend to ramble a bit. Really? Peter, you ramble? Well, a little bit. I tend to ramble a bit. Really? Peter, you ramble? Well, a little bit.

You know, just a little bit. Well, you know, why don't you be, you know, why don't you speed it up and go through these letters quickly? Okay. You know, let me try to do that. I can't promise, but I'll try. Right after this. Wow, that's quite the music, Peter. Well, you know, I'm just such a hip guy. All right, letters.

This one comes from Trevor Beckley. These are all, well, they're not all long letters, but they're all quite, some of them are quite lengthy. And so I'm boiling them down to sort of one key sentence, one key question out of each letter. Trevor Beckley writes from Vancouver. I've noticed in this and past election cycles that these debates are generally not well attended.

He's talking about the local debates, the candidate in the riding debates. I don't know why. Do you agree that the majority of voters who are in any way engaged in this election are solely focused on the leaders? I often wonder if most people even know the names of the candidates in their own writing. If so, why do you think this is the case?

Trevor, you're right. Most people are aware of the leaders' campaigns. That's the whole way that parties focus things. That's the whole way the media focuses things. And that's what we tend to end up voting on. Who's your preferred prime minister? That's one of the key questions that all the public pollsters ask. Who's your preferred prime minister? And they list all the public pollsters asked. Who's your preferred prime minister?

And they list all the leadership names. I would hope, so I think there's no doubt about that, I would hope that more people are aware of their local candidates' names. I think there's probably more people who are aware of their local candidates' names than they are about how they're going to make the decision who they're going to vote for, whether they're actually voting for that local candidate or they're voting for the leader.

But it's worth understanding your local candidates, who they are, what they stand for, what they're saying, what they're promising at the door, or whether they're just handing out whatever the party paraphernalia is. You can tell by asking them a few questions at the door how serious they are about those issues, personally how serious they are, and so you should challenge them. All right. Pat Wharton, Vernon, B.C.

I really hope, you know, I made an appeal to all of you to tell me whether or not you wanted to keep the podcast going afterwards. And more importantly, if you do, what focus you'd like to see. You know, it's not going to be a daily podcast. But if I do one, what would you like the focus to be about? If anything at all. You know, my son wants me to talk about the Leafs one night, and the next night it could be about Syria.

Talk about anything that I feel I have something to contribute on. Anyway, Pat says, I hope you keep the podcast as a weekly on going issues like racism and immigration, for example. Keep babbling. Thanks, Pat. I love to babble.

And as a side note, Pat says, I have also been listening to the Hurley Burley. We gave the big shout-out to David Hurley's podcast. And think it is awesome. It is awesome. It's terrific. It's David Hurley and Scott Reed and Jenny Byrne, a nice mix of a couple of the parties from people who were in key positions in past races and their

assessment of how things are going. Are they partisan? Sure, they're partisan. Do they say they're partisan? Of course they say they're not partisan. They're just observers. But listen, they're great and they're entertaining. Scott swears too much, but other than that, it's terrific. No, it is good. It's a really good podcast. Glenn Finocchio from Calgary, Alberta. Or Finocchio.

I'm not sure, Glenn. But your comment. Do you know of a time or election when willful misinformation, in other words, fake news, has been so prevalent and such a factor for voters? Have you noticed that some demographics or sectors of the voting spectrum

seem to accept these fake news stories more readily than others. Excuse me. Losing my voice. I do think that there's more fake news out there in this campaign than we've ever seen before. I'm not sure about whether certain segments of the population are more susceptible to buying into this stuff or not.

Most of the fake news that's come out, it seems to have been partisan in the sense that it's directed against one party or one leader more so than the others, and therefore the people who go to it most naturally, sort of accepted, are those who are partisans themselves. But I don't think there's any question that there's more. And it's the natural progression from the sewer which can be the Internet. The Internet is still the most powerful research tool in the history of the world.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of garbage in it. And it's up to us to be more challenging about what we accept as real. Victor Woolhouse in Toronto. If you're soliciting opinions on the possibility of you doing further podcasts, count me in, I guess is what he's saying. I've looked forward to every Bridge episode and have really enjoyed your insights. Thanks, Victor. Want to be co-host?

If having on-site guests is problematic, many podcasts link participants with Skype or the like. I really enjoy hearing you and Rick Mercer and your take on the state of the country. You're the very best ever to be in CBC. Well, thank you, Victor, and I'll mention that to Rick. I'm not sure where he is next week, but maybe we could try to get Rick on for his kind of take on things.

He's a very shy guy, you know, Rick. But we'll see if he's in town or wherever he is and see whether he may be interested in doing something like that. That would be fun. Kerry Cody writes from Truro, Nova Scotia. He's got a long letter. I'm going to zero in on one particular part of it. I've been listening to podcasts for at least five years now,

longer than anyone I know. That's a long time for a podcast. And here are some things I love about yours. No commercials. That's a big one. I think it's great you don't need them. Hey, I never said I didn't need them. I said I didn't want any commercials

in the bridge while we're covering the election. I just didn't want to. She goes on a snippet of the day. It's a fantastic way to hear about the campaign without having to pay too much attention to the news stories. Your voice, the fellow who heard you in Thunder Bay, it was actually Churchill, Manitoba. Sure knew a good voice when he heard it. Thank you. We told that Churchill story earlier

in the Bridges Lifetime, so I'll have to go back to earlier podcasts for that one. Just one last note on the commercials. If I continue this into the future, I may have to consider that. Just to help cover the cost of putting this out there. But we'll see. Maybe not.

Maybe nobody will want it. But from what I understand, there are people who would like to sponsor this podcast. So we'll think about that. Anyway, Kerry, thank you for your note. A couple more. I know this is going long, but I want to, you know, there's a backlog, so I want to get as many of these on as I can.

This one comes from Teresa in Clarenville, Newfoundland. Would you have any advice to someone like me who is undecided and sees good and bad things on all the party's platforms? All are equally important issues. Well, you know, that's the dilemma of the voter who cares. Who has issues that matter to them. And who wants to consider all the possibilities. You've got to study. You've got to go through things. And you've got to, kind of like what I suggested the other night on the debate with the X's and the check marks, you kind of do

that, or could do that, on this as well. You go through the platforms, you talk, you know, you listen to what the leaders are saying, and you mark up their program and see who totals up the best after all is said and done. And sometimes it's just simply a gut instinct. Who do you believe? Who do you trust? Whose promises are realistic that you think they could actually deliver on?

And then that helps you come to your mind. Okay, Heather. I'm not sure whether Heather is, oh, it's Thunder Bay. She grew up in Pickle Lake, where the CBC and TVO, that's the Ontario Public Broadcaster, were our only television choices. Well, that's not bad. Those are pretty good choices.

Up in Pickle Lake. I'm assuming now with satellite dishes in Pickle Lake, you can get anything you want. You know, you can get that Detroit news. Let's get more Detroit news into northern remote regions of Canada because that's important. Yikes. Here's Heather's question.

I was listening to the Big Story podcast, highly recommend this, and a master student at Dalhousie was being interviewed. Her name is Isabel Hurley, and she, together with her supervising professor, developed a tool to help Canadians easily understand the policy positions of the four main parties in regards to climate change and the environment. The tool is constantly being updated as the parties further clarify their plans.

So Heather sent me the link, and I checked it out. It's really good. And, you know, full credit to Isabel Hurley and her supervising professor for developing this. I'm going to give you the link, so get your pens ready. And you can have a look. It's very straightforward. It's very simple.

But have a look. It's very straightforward. It's very simple. But have a look at it. And if this is your issue, this is not a bad place to look for a sense of where everybody stands. It's Envirovote, E-N-V-I-R-O-V-O-T-E dot C-A. Envirovote Canada. Have a look. Okay? All right, day 31 in the books. Just think, a week from now, next Friday, will only be a couple of days from the election.

This is Thanksgiving weekend. I hope you have a great one. Here in Stratford, it's been a wonderful couple of days weather-wise. I think there's a bit of rain expected tomorrow, which would be unfortunate. But still, it's a great weekend to enjoy with family or without. You got some time, maybe read a few columns or platforms. You're going to have to make a decision now. And you can go out and vote this weekend. Advanced polling is open today, tomorrow, Sunday,

and I think Monday as well. So you have an opportunity to vote this weekend, get out of the way so you don't have to be running around on Monday, October 21st. I think I'll use this weekend to vote. So there you go. I'm not sure whether I'm going to take the whole three days off, but last weekend, you know, last weekend I suddenly decided

to do something on Sunday. So I might decide to do a bridge on Monday, and if something happens on Saturday or Sunday, I'll do one then as well. But in the meantime, have a great weekend. Enjoy what in many parts of the country are spectacular colors breaking through. Talked to my daughter who's up at Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba. There's only one color there this weekend,

and it's white, and a lot of it. And it's cold. But I'm sure she'll find, with her family, a way to have a great time. All right, Day 31. As I said, in the books. I'm Peter Mansbridge. This is The Bridge.

Thanks for listening.